Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/911/2019

Ram Duggal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/911/2019
Date of Institution	:	05/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	02.01.2023

 

Ram Duggal son of Shri Pinjru Ram resident of House No.2115, Sector 21, Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited through its Managing Director/incharge 20 to 24^th floor, two horizon centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF Phase B, Gurgaon, Haryana 122202.
2.  Reliance Retail Limited through its Director/Incharge     SCO NO. 322-323, Sector 09, Panchkula.
3. Mobile Care through its Partner/proprietor SCO No.62,      First floor, MDC, Sector 5, Panchkula 134-108.
4. Samsung Customer Service through its partner/proprietor,   SCO No. 92, first floor swastika vihar, Panchkula 134109
5.  Supertech Engineers through its proprietor/partner, plot No. 182/28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh    160001.

 .  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH			PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR			MEMBER
ARGUED BY			Complainant in person.
			Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for OP No.1
			Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for OP No.2
			OPs No. 3,4 and 5 expare.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1. Briefly stated, complainant purchased a Samsung mobile from Opposite Party No.2 for a sum of Rs.26900/- vide invoice Annexure C-1 having one year guarantee. After purchase the mobile in question started giving problem of contact hanging. The complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Parties regarding the defects. The Opposite Party No.4 examined the mobile phone on 13.9.2016 and retained the same with it for repair and assured the complainant to deliver the handset on 14.9.2016. It is alleged that despite the complainant visited Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 numerous times. They neither repaired the handset nor returned back the same to the complainant. It is stated that in the absence of mobile the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment. The request of the complainant to replace the handset was also turned down by the Opposite Parties. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed the complainant sent legal notice to OPs No. 1 to 3, and in response to the legal notice Opposite Party No.1 advised the complainant to approach Opposite Party No.5 accordingly complainant approached Opposite Party No.5 to resolve the hanging problem. However, Opposite Party No.5 admitted that due to manufacturing defect the handset could not be repaired but  it refused to deliver copy  of the job card to the complainant. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties neither replaced the defective handset nor refunded the price thereof, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence, this complaint has been filed. 
2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 stated that when the complainant approached the service centre of answering Opposite Party on 13.9.2016 he was given prompt service, the device was checked and it was found to be working good as no fault was found in the device. The complainant was informed about the same and was requested to collect the device from the authorized service centre of the answering Opposite Party  but the complainant did not respond to the same. It is vehemently denied that the complainant got the device inspected from Opposite Party No.5  as the device was never collected from Opposite Party No.3. It is averred that the  complainant is himself at fault as he did not collect the device from the service centre  despite numerous calls and letters sent. . All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. In its reply Opposite Party No.2 stated that it is only a retailer and seller of various electronic items of many manufactures at its stores, which included products of Samsung also  and the answering Opposite Party a is a separate legal entity and there is no direct or indirect relation between the answering Opposite Party and other Opposite Parties. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable against the answering Opposite Party. Denying all other allegations in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. OPs No. 3,4 and 5 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 22.11.2019 Opposite Parties No. 3&4 and vide order dated 7.9.2022  Opposite Party No. 5 respectively were proceeded against exparte.
5. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. It is evident from Annexure C-1, the copy of invoice that the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile on 7.9.2016 for a sum of Rs.26900/-. The newly purchased handset in question within a week of purchase started giving problem of contact hanging and the same was submitted to Opposite Party No.3, the  authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 for the required service on 13.9.2016.  It is mentioned in the job sheet, repair was to be completed by 14.9.2016 but as per complainant till date neither the handset has been repaired nor the same is returned to the complainant. In the Annexure C-4 dated 26.12.2018  the reply to the legal notice of the complainant it has been stated that no defect has been observed in the handset in question and the same has been informed to the complainant several times. It is also stated that it is the complainant only who is not collecting the handset despite various requests. 
9. After going through the documents on record, it is abundantly clear that the complainant could not enjoy his brand new handset despite spending huge amount as within a week from the date of purchase the same started giving problem and which could not be rectified by the OPs nor the same was returned to the complainant. Hence, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   
10.      Despite being duly served, OPs No. 3 to 5 failed to appear or come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint, which raised a reasonable presumption that they have nothing to contradict the allegations made in the complaint.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund the invoice price of Rs.26900/- to the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of complainant.
2.     to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay  Rs.5000/-/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			Sd/-
			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member